cleanshot_open_annotate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the action. It does not mention whether CleanShot is launched, whether the file is modified/read-only, or what happens on invalid paths.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, direct, no filler, and front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool the description plus schema is minimally sufficient, but it lacks usage context and behavioral details (e.g., when to choose this over open_from_clipboard, app launch behavior). With no annotations or output schema, slightly more context would be needed for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema already fully describes the single filepath parameter with coverage 100%, so the description adds no new parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema carries the semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly specifies verb 'open' and resource 'a file in CleanShot's Annotate tool', making the core function obvious. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cleanshot_open_from_clipboard or cleanshot_open_history, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cleanshot_open_from_clipboard or capture tools. The statement only describes the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.